Cycle wings or Clamshells?
Discussion
BC - your car is an original Lotus by the looks of it so I'd say stick with clams. However, you can get original look cycles too I think. My Caterham started with clams and now I have cycles - I prefer the cycles.
Harnesses - very easy to fit assuming the chassis is drilled for them. I managed it and I was a mechanical numpty at the time (been learning since then though).
Harnesses - very easy to fit assuming the chassis is drilled for them. I managed it and I was a mechanical numpty at the time (been learning since then though).
ewenm said:
BC - your car is an original Lotus by the looks of it so I'd say stick with clams. However, you can get original look cycles too I think. My Caterham started with clams and now I have cycles - I prefer the cycles.
Harnesses - very easy to fit assuming the chassis is drilled for them. I managed it and I was a mechanical numpty at the time (been learning since then though).
Harnesses - very easy to fit assuming the chassis is drilled for them. I managed it and I was a mechanical numpty at the time (been learning since then though).
Thanks alot, you sound pretty caterham clued up, how much do you think the insurance would be for a 17y/o on the base 1.6?
DamienCBR said:
I think it is all a matter of personal opinion. I think the cycle wings make it look older more classic. If i am think of the right thing.
I am not sure because only just getting into the Caterham and kit car side of things and prefer the wheels cover guards. Clams?
D
I am not sure because only just getting into the Caterham and kit car side of things and prefer the wheels cover guards. Clams?
D
Youve got your wings the wrong way round! The clams are what it has and are the classic fitment, the cycles are the tight fitting items!
Big cheese! said:
DamienCBR said:
I think it is all a matter of personal opinion. I think the cycle wings make it look older more classic. If i am think of the right thing.
I am not sure because only just getting into the Caterham and kit car side of things and prefer the wheels cover guards. Clams?
D
I am not sure because only just getting into the Caterham and kit car side of things and prefer the wheels cover guards. Clams?
D
Youve got your wings the wrong way round! The clams are what it has and are the classic fitment, the cycles are the tight fitting items!
Thanks Cheese, in that case i am with you. Told you i was not sure.....
Big cheese! said:
ewenm said:
BC - your car is an original Lotus by the looks of it so I'd say stick with clams. However, you can get original look cycles too I think. My Caterham started with clams and now I have cycles - I prefer the cycles.
Harnesses - very easy to fit assuming the chassis is drilled for them. I managed it and I was a mechanical numpty at the time (been learning since then though).
Harnesses - very easy to fit assuming the chassis is drilled for them. I managed it and I was a mechanical numpty at the time (been learning since then though).
Thanks alot, you sound pretty caterham clued up, how much do you think the insurance would be for a 17y/o on the base 1.6?
Erm, quite a lot I suspect if you can find it at all. My Caterham was my first car but I was 23 at the time. It was parked on the street in N London (Holloway/Highbury
) and had no mileage limit; the premium for the first year was £1100 with Adrian Flux. People to try are Adrian Flux, MSM Insurance and Eggar Lawson or do a search on www.blatchat.com for others.ewenm said:
Big cheese! said:
ewenm said:
BC - your car is an original Lotus by the looks of it so I'd say stick with clams. However, you can get original look cycles too I think. My Caterham started with clams and now I have cycles - I prefer the cycles.
Harnesses - very easy to fit assuming the chassis is drilled for them. I managed it and I was a mechanical numpty at the time (been learning since then though).
Harnesses - very easy to fit assuming the chassis is drilled for them. I managed it and I was a mechanical numpty at the time (been learning since then though).
Thanks alot, you sound pretty caterham clued up, how much do you think the insurance would be for a 17y/o on the base 1.6?
Erm, quite a lot I suspect if you can find it at all. My Caterham was my first car but I was 23 at the time. It was parked on the street in N London (Holloway/Highbury
) and had no mileage limit; the premium for the first year was £1100 with Adrian Flux. People to try are Adrian Flux, MSM Insurance and Eggar Lawson or do a search on www.blatchat.com for others.Cheers but this will be in a garage in a sleepy Norfolk lane.
If that is an original Lotus 7 then I would not touch it and keep it original. Other option is to sell it and get a Caterham and modify it to your hearts content. Classic cars should stay original IMHO.
Ref the Harness's, if the bushes are there to bolt them into then they are easy to fit otherwise its a major hassle to strip down the chassis and weld all those threaded bushes on.
Ref the Harness's, if the bushes are there to bolt them into then they are easy to fit otherwise its a major hassle to strip down the chassis and weld all those threaded bushes on.
LRdriver II said:
If that is an original Lotus 7 then I would not touch it and keep it original. Other option is to sell it and get a Caterham and modify it to your hearts content. Classic cars should stay original IMHO.
Ref the Harness's, if the bushes are there to bolt them into then they are easy to fit otherwise its a major hassle to strip down the chassis and weld all those threaded bushes on.
Ref the Harness's, if the bushes are there to bolt them into then they are easy to fit otherwise its a major hassle to strip down the chassis and weld all those threaded bushes on.
All my classics are totally orginal and I think i will keep thjis one in showroom condition. Its having new bushes anyway because I killed the suspension on norfolk roads!
There are a number of problems with converting a clamshell fitted Seven to cycle mudguards.
Firstly, if the clams are removed, you will be lift with a row of holes along the bodywork where the attachment bolts were originally fitted. You have two options. The least attractive is to leave the bolts in place and simply paint over them. The result is very unsightly, in my opinion. The alternative is to have the old side panels replaced by new panels without holes. If the car is painted (not all Sevens are, of course), then it will need to be resprayed. This will make the conversion very expensive.
Secondly, fitting cycle mudguards restricts the turning angles of the front wheels as the mudguards actually touch the bodywork at full lock. Sevens fitted with cycle mudguards from the start either have a wider front track or restricted lock to prevent this happening.
Firstly, if the clams are removed, you will be lift with a row of holes along the bodywork where the attachment bolts were originally fitted. You have two options. The least attractive is to leave the bolts in place and simply paint over them. The result is very unsightly, in my opinion. The alternative is to have the old side panels replaced by new panels without holes. If the car is painted (not all Sevens are, of course), then it will need to be resprayed. This will make the conversion very expensive.
Secondly, fitting cycle mudguards restricts the turning angles of the front wheels as the mudguards actually touch the bodywork at full lock. Sevens fitted with cycle mudguards from the start either have a wider front track or restricted lock to prevent this happening.
Eric Mc said:
There are a number of problems with converting a clamshell fitted Seven to cycle mudguards.
Firstly, if the clams are removed, you will be lift with a row of holes along the bodywork where the attachment bolts were originally fitted. You have two options. The least attractive is to leave the bolts in place and simply paint over them. The result is very unsightly, in my opinion. The alternative is to have the old side panels replaced by new panels without holes. If the car is painted (not all Sevens are, of course), then it will need to be resprayed. This will make the conversion very expensive.
Secondly, fitting cycle mudguards restricts the turning angles of the front wheels as the mudguards actually touch the bodywork at full lock. Sevens fitted with cycle mudguards from the start either have a wider front track or restricted lock to prevent this happening.
Firstly, if the clams are removed, you will be lift with a row of holes along the bodywork where the attachment bolts were originally fitted. You have two options. The least attractive is to leave the bolts in place and simply paint over them. The result is very unsightly, in my opinion. The alternative is to have the old side panels replaced by new panels without holes. If the car is painted (not all Sevens are, of course), then it will need to be resprayed. This will make the conversion very expensive.
Secondly, fitting cycle mudguards restricts the turning angles of the front wheels as the mudguards actually touch the bodywork at full lock. Sevens fitted with cycle mudguards from the start either have a wider front track or restricted lock to prevent this happening.
Oh, im in a tight spot money wise so I think ill leave it as is, thanks everyone!
If the "T" plate the car is on is indeed 1979 - it'll be a Caterham. To be honest, little historical value in keeping it as it is - if it was a Lotus 7 you'd be advised to keep it as it is.
Clam to cycle conversion is a major undertaking for the reasons Eric gives, but I maintain that clams lighten the steering up too much for my liking.
Clam to cycle conversion is a major undertaking for the reasons Eric gives, but I maintain that clams lighten the steering up too much for my liking.
rubystone said:
If the "T" plate the car is on is indeed 1979 - it'll be a Caterham. To be honest, little historical value in keeping it as it is - if it was a Lotus 7 you'd be advised to keep it as it is.
Clam to cycle conversion is a major undertaking for the reasons Eric gives, but I maintain that clams lighten the steering up too much for my liking.
Clam to cycle conversion is a major undertaking for the reasons Eric gives, but I maintain that clams lighten the steering up too much for my liking.
It is officialy a Lotus7. All the parts and engine(Twincam) were made by Lotus but it was put together by Caterham, making it 1 of about 50 cars. Of which I think jonnyMaestro and Twincam16 have also. I may be wrong about that bit though.
I used to have a car with clams, it was fine and I quite liked them. Its an old wives tail, that says clams create lift, they are ok at well over the legal limit and on the track.
A couple of my mates, converted to cycles, by having ali plates glued/bonded to the inside where the holes were, then filled and then painted. The conversion looked very good. The only proper way is to have the car re-skinned.
I now have cycles on my latest car, they are also good, and they don't touch the body on full lock, and the car is still narrow track. Cycle wing cars have a different steering rack to the earlier clam cars, so the lock is slightly less, but nothing to write home about.
A couple of my mates, converted to cycles, by having ali plates glued/bonded to the inside where the holes were, then filled and then painted. The conversion looked very good. The only proper way is to have the car re-skinned.
I now have cycles on my latest car, they are also good, and they don't touch the body on full lock, and the car is still narrow track. Cycle wing cars have a different steering rack to the earlier clam cars, so the lock is slightly less, but nothing to write home about.
Our K series car has got clams on it and nothwithstanding the look, they are much more practical than cycle wings during wet weather driving when the spray is kept low along the sideskin compared to the cycle wing stream of water that hits initially the top of the rear wing before dispersing itself into the cockpit! Same goes for stones and other crap off the road....
WRT high speed driving, our car has been past 120 (not in this country of course!) and not suffered front end lift or problems at all.
T
WRT high speed driving, our car has been past 120 (not in this country of course!) and not suffered front end lift or problems at all.
T
[quote=Big cheese[/quote]
It is officialy a Lotus7. All the parts and engine(Twincam) were made by Lotus but it was put together by Caterham, making it 1 of about 50 cars. Of which I think jonnyMaestro and Twincam16 have also. I may be wrong about that bit though.[/quote]
???? Why would Nearn build 50 of these cars 6 years AFTER buying the rights and badge them as Lotus?...I am sure there were enough parts around for Nearn to be effectively building S3s back in 1973, but the DVLA has your car registered as a 1979 car, not a 1973 car....I recall Caterham releasing a silver aniversary Caterham back in 1982 but even that wasn't badged as a Lotus.
Let me know the chassis number and I'll check it out with John Watson for you
It is officialy a Lotus7. All the parts and engine(Twincam) were made by Lotus but it was put together by Caterham, making it 1 of about 50 cars. Of which I think jonnyMaestro and Twincam16 have also. I may be wrong about that bit though.[/quote]
???? Why would Nearn build 50 of these cars 6 years AFTER buying the rights and badge them as Lotus?...I am sure there were enough parts around for Nearn to be effectively building S3s back in 1973, but the DVLA has your car registered as a 1979 car, not a 1973 car....I recall Caterham releasing a silver aniversary Caterham back in 1982 but even that wasn't badged as a Lotus.
Let me know the chassis number and I'll check it out with John Watson for you
Gassing Station | Caterham | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff